Of which i went thru the whole movie and debunked it, still waiting for a reply as usual

Quote:

**** it, i will do the whole video for you.

21 secs in, it states that nist says the fire weaken the metal supports, which sounds good. Please pull up the tests nist conducted on the recovered wtc metal and let me know when you find reports of fires hot enough and long enough to weaken the metal.

56 secs into the video it states that fireproofing was blown off the beams, which i am sure is correct, but how much was blown off is just a guess. worse then that, the cardington fire tests(done before 9-11) show that a STEEL FRAMED COMPOSITE building does not need fireproofing, to withstand the reported)(and tested)temps from the wtc metal. Hell even U.L.'s tests say they could of stood for much longer even if the temps were as high as nist pretends(but has no proof) that they were.

1:09 in the flick and it states the crashes pushed debris to the walls and corners. What is interesting is that the nist report states that the fuel load in an area was used up in 15 mins, and naturally the fire moved on.

Now i'm sure i do not have to tell you that if i have a 200 foot steel ibeam with a 1,000oC hot fire under 5 feet of it, those 5 feet of steel are not going to be 1000oC correct?

1:24 is pretty telling, can you explain how the southwest corner of the building was so cold, but it's supports gave out anyway?

You see in order for it to fall down in it's footprint, all supports would need to be weaken to collapse point at the same time.

1:31 This sounds good, temps in the towers reached 1800o they say. But where is the you know......proof. Did the whole floor/floors burn at 1800o for an hour? or did the fire move thru out the floor/floors eating up fuel, staying in one area for 15 mins. Which even AT the temps nist is pretending, it's still not hot enough. Take fire off the steel and it starts to cool. From the heat simulation in YOUR flick, the only corner in trouble was the northeast corner.

2:19 you have to stop it just right to see how they pop the perimeter column out, just take out a middle section of it. There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, If it is the "pancake" theory you endorse then what happened to the top floors? Second from there own heat simulation the fire is only hot in one corner, mild in two and cold in one. How exactly does that transform into a near free fall collapse of all supports?

2:41 good point here, the north tower had less floors above to drive the collapse. At what point did the top floors disintegrate since they were not found stacked up on the ground.

3:22 he says people run from the bowing claim, so lets meet it head on. So what if it is bowing in the southeast corner, how does that weaken the other three corners supports and all supports on the undamaged lower half of the building?

3:45 notice it always says led, only one person has ever tried to explain the collapse AFTER it began, and he was proven wrong even by the government, he endorsed the pancake theory. The nist report only leads UP to the moment of collapse, but not the collapse itself. Why is that? We pay for half assed work now a days?

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

You mean how much was left after they hustled it out to melt down in china?

not sure, but some of the metal was confirmed to be from the impacted and fire zones that brought the towers down. I dont think they were all first floor columns so, there goes that theory eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Looking at the final report you've omitted where they state that the steel tested represents 0.25-.5% of all of the steel in the buildings and that the pieces tested are not fully representative of the conditions in the towers.

Maybe these will show we've hashed this out before.

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

The tables are for metal NOT from the wtc and they were tested to see what they could WITHSTAND, not what they withstood.

understand?

I'm not debating at what temp metal starts to lose strength, i'm simply stating that there is no PROOF that the fires ever got that hot.

I don't care if nist set the computer model on 5000000oC, until there is some proof....oh,oh wait a min, i guess there is no proof since the government sent it all out of the country to get melted down before the investigation had even started.

oh man that sucks, so i can not prove temps did not get that high, but worse then that, you now have to acknowledge you support a theory with no evidence to back it up.

Btw i'm sure we hashed this out before, just like i was sure you never showed me test results done on recovered steel that backs the governments theory.

That test was to recreate the conditions within the WTC after the plane impacts. They're not computer models, either. How many times did you read that report?

As for the rest of your drivel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Looking at the final report you've omitted where they state that the steel tested represents 0.25-.5% of all of the steel in the buildings and that the pieces tested are not fully representative of the conditions in the towers.

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

That test was to recreate the conditions within the WTC after the plane impacts. They're not computer models, either. How many times did you read that report?

As for the rest of your drivel.

Yes i understand they were supposed to recreate the conditions, but those "conditions" in the test were a lot different then the conditions the wtc metal came back as saying these were the conditions.

what is so ****ing hard to understand here?

Yes i can say conditions were like 900oC for 40 mins, and yes my metal will lose support.......but surely i must have something, one piece of metal that says this was the ACTUAL conditions.

Or do we just make up conditions on what we believe they would be and not what the tested metal says?

You can not have evidence of a 250oC 15 min fire, and then do a test of 800oC 40 min fire and say yep, that proves it?

WTF is going on in your school, who the **** is teaching this kind of crap?

you have evidence of a 250oC fire from recovered, tested, impact zone wtc metal. The reason the tests were done at 800oC is because everyone ****ing knows a 250oC 15 min fire wont do ****, but you have to cover your tracks somehow right?

Looking at the final report you've omitted where they state that the steel tested represents 0.25-.5% of all of the steel in the buildings and that the pieces tested are not fully representative of the conditions in the towers.

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

Yes i understand they were supposed to recreate the conditions, but those "conditions" in the test were a lot different then the conditions the wtc metal came back as saying these were the conditions.

what is so ****ing hard to understand here?

Yes i can say conditions were like 900oC for 40 mins, and yes my metal will lose support.......but surely i must have something, one piece of metal that says this was the ACTUAL conditions.

Or do we just make up conditions on what we believe they would be and not what the tested metal says?

You can not have evidence of a 250oC 15 min fire, and then do a test of 800oC 40 min fire and say yep, that proves it?

WTF is going on in your school, who the **** is teaching this kind of crap?

you have evidence of a 250oC fire from recovered, tested, impact zone wtc metal. The reason the tests were done at 800oC is because everyone ****ing knows a 250oC 15 min fire wont do ****, but you have to cover your tracks somehow right?

Look at this stupid mother****er. Go on everyone, ****ing look at him. This is an example of the worst kind of person that exists. One that takes mountains of scientifically collected data and rejects it based upon inaccurate and stupid assertions.

You are taking a SINGLE sample of steel, represented a minuscule fraction of some part of the structure. Where it came from, who knows, and pretend that because THAT piece doesn't meet a particular criteria that there is no evidence to suggest the rest didn't. The sample is statistically insignificant and cannot be used to drawn any real conclusions about the event.

Then, when scientist use numerical models to determine the conditions present at the location of the structure where it matter and determine that the temperatures were indeed high enough to weaken the steel, well proven models that have been used in engineering practice in countless designs for decades, it isn't good enough.

When they verify the results of the models through repeatable and well documented experimentation, and prove them to be capable of accurately representing the conditions of the floors of the building that were on fire, and verified the results of the models that showed the steel was heated well beyond the point where it had any reasonable strength, you dismiss it.

You can provide nothing to suggest that the models are invalid. You can provide nothing to suggest their experimental methods are inadequate. You can provide no reasonable explanation as to why the conclusion reached by REAL experts should be questioned.

All you can say is that a percentage of a percentage of the metal recovered from the wreckage of the building didn't get hot enough. Can you not understand why claiming that has any impact on the findings of this report is completely absurd? Do you understand that you lack reason completely? You CANNOT take a statistically insignificant sample and pretend that it can be used to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion. Read and UNDERSTAND that statement! ****ing learn something!

You completely misinterpret all of the information you find, likely intentionally, to fit your stupid ideas. You do not understand how to apply scientific reasoning to a situation and draw a meaningful conclusion. You are ****ing terrible.

__________________

Magen VeLo Yera'e

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.

All you can say is that a percentage of a percentage of the metal recovered from the wreckage of the building didn't get hot enough. Can you not understand why claiming that has any impact on the findings of this report is completely absurd? Do you understand that you lack reason completely? You CANNOT take a statistically insignificant sample and pretend that it can be used to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion. Read and UNDERSTAND that statement! ****ing learn something!

That's funny, because don't you have to do that to assume your conditions? what makes your conditions of 800oC for 40 mins any more viable then my conditions of 250oC for 15 mins(leaving out of course, i have evidence of my conditions)?

What do you need to know? The government took part in the biggest destruction of evidence before an investigation was complete in the history of mankind.

Let me guess, you think it just so happens that they did not find any evidence to back up their story because they grabbed the wrong piece's right?

Not because any piece they grabbed would of proved them wrong.

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

That's funny, because don't you have to do that to assume your conditions? what makes your conditions of 800oC for 40 mins any more viable then my conditions of 250oC for 15 mins(leaving out of course, i have evidence of my conditions)?

I wait with baited breathe professor.

If you had read the report, you'd see that they were recreating the conditions of the fire. Since the exact conditions for every spot aren't known they tested a range of the variables to have data for any possible combination. Of course if you'd read what I've quoted above you'd see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesme

What do you need to know? The government took part in the biggest destruction of evidence before an investigation was complete in the history of mankind.

Let me guess, you think it just so happens that they did not find any evidence to back up their story because they grabbed the wrong piece's right?

Not because any piece they grabbed would of proved them wrong.

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

My assumption is they were too busy trying to save lives and restore NYC to a somewhat livable condition. They grabbed large hunks of the building but with something that huge in a mess it's going to be hard to pick and choose which pieces you want and get a statistically accurate picture.

You should really read the report, it dispels a lot of the conspiracy myths you've touted over and over again.

For instance:

Quote:

10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST’s answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...ftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

Goddam this WTC **** again...about as much fun as shredded wheat...unfrosted shredded wheat.

__________________
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.]-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799http://abaddoncomic.com/

Anyone else button down the hatch and sell all their stocks, preparing for the fiscal cliff? All of the stocks that I sold are now 20% lower than when I sold them. Housing prices going down to me, is a good thing. But that is because I am not a home owner yet.

Anyone else button down the hatch and sell all their stocks, preparing for the fiscal cliff? All of the stocks that I sold are now 20% lower than when I sold them. Housing prices going down to me, is a good thing. But that is because I am not a home owner yet.

In addition to considering an unemployment rate of roughly 12% — up from 7.9% in October — in the most severe recession scenario, banks must evaluate how their capital buffers would withstand real GDP declining by around 5%.

Banks will also have to test for equity prices that would fall by more than 50% over the course of the recession, with house prices declining more than 20% and with commercial real estate prices falling by a similar amount.

That's funny, because don't you have to do that to assume your conditions? what makes your conditions of 800oC for 40 mins any more viable then my conditions of 250oC for 15 mins(leaving out of course, i have evidence of my conditions)?

If you had read the report, you'd see that they were recreating the conditions of the fire. Since the exact conditions for every spot aren't known they tested a range of the variables to have data for any possible combination. Of course if you'd read what I've quoted above you'd see that.

I did read that, yes they tested beams at 250oC for 15 mins with and without fireproofing, yes,yes, we know that.

In order to make their "model" work, you know the computer model they did, they up the conditions to 800oC when they had no proof it ever got that hot.

Simply because any other lower temp they tried would not work, so they made their "conditions" fit the result so it looks nice and tidy.

Name one other fire investigation done where the heat tested for was 4 times what was found on site please.